Skip to main content
Best News Website or Mobile Service
WAN-IFRA Digital Media Awards Worldwide
Best News Website or Mobile Service
Digital Media Awards Worldwide
Hamburger Menu



commentary Commentary

Commentary: Immunity passports could help restart the economy

Immunity passports could enable people who have recovered from COVID-19 to return to the workplace or even travel, says an observer.

Commentary: Immunity passports could help restart the economy

Commuters wearing face masks on an MRT train in Singapore, March 18, 2020. (Photo: AFP/Catherine Lai)

GOLD COAST: If you’ve already recovered from the coronavirus, can you go back to the workplace carefree?

This is the question countries such as the UK, Chile, Germany and Italy are trying to answer by considering immunity passports. 

These would be physical or digital documents given to people who’ve recovered from COVID-19 and are immune from the disease for a period of time. This would enable them to return to the workplace or even travel.

But there are serious concerns that immunity passports could create two classes of citizen and provide a perverse incentive to contract the virus deliberately.

READ: Commentary: Can you catch the coronavirus twice?

READ: Commentary: Multibillion-dollar wizards – how COVID-19 is exposing what’s behind the curtain


When we are exposed to a virus, our bodies rapidly respond by giving us fevers, runny noses, and coughing. This initial immune response works by raising our body temperature and activating many cellular changes that make it harder for the virus to replicate.

Such symptoms signal our immune system is activating to fight off infection. These defences are not specific to the virus but merely serve to hold it at bay until a more powerful and specific immune response can be mounted, which usually takes seven to 10 days.

We then start to build a targeted immune response by making antibodies (among other things) specific to the virus infecting us. This immunity peaks at about day 10 and will continue to work for the rest of our lives with some viruses, but sadly not coronaviruses.

Immunity to most normal coronaviruses, including those that cause some common colds, only lasts around 12 months. This is because the immune system’s response to coronaviruses wanes over time, and because these viruses slowly mutate, which is a normal part of the viral “lifecycle”.

People wearing protective face masks are seen on a street following an outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Shanghai, China May 25, 2020. REUTERS/Aly Song

We don’t know yet how long immunity will last for COVID-19, but we might reasonably expect it to be similar, given what we know about our immune responses to coronaviruses.


Immunity passports will only work if people really are immune to reinfection. Earlier reports from South Korea and China suggested some people tested positive again after having recovered.

This prompted the World Health Organisation (WHO) to declare in late April there was no evidence immunity passports would be reliable.

READ: 'No evidence' yet that recovered COVID-19 patients cannot be reinfected: WHO

But more recent data suggests these tests were picking up dead lung cells which contained dead virus. 

Since then, experiments have also suggested animals that have recovered from COVID-19 infection could not be reinfected (although this study has not yet been peer-reviewed).

READ: Commentary: Malaysia succeeded in suppressing COVID-19 but here comes the harder part

READ: Commentary: Majority who have COVID-19 may not show symptoms but more research needed

We also know SARS patients from 2002 had antibodies that lasted an average of two years. People who had been infected with the MERS coronavirus seemed to retain antibodies for at least 12 months.

The WHO has since updated its advice to recognise that recovering from COVID-19 will likely provide some level of protection from reinfection.

Therefore, people who have recovered from COVID-19 are likely to be immune for a period. This means they could potentially be carrying SARS-CoV-2 – the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 – but won’t develop the disease of COVID-19, and are therefore less likely to pass it on. 

But we don’t know for sure how long this immunity might last.

A healthcare worker takes blood samples from a person during testing for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and antibodies at a clinic after authorities launched free mass screening for residents in the Russian capital, in Moscow, Russia May 15, 2020. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

Of course, to issue immunity passports, we must be able to reliably detect immunity. There are many tests that claim to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but are not yet reliable enough.

To assess the presence of antibodies, we must use more reliable tests done in pathology laboratories, called ELISA tests, rather than on-the-spot tests.


We know there are a number of professions that are highly exposed to the virus. These include frontline medical workers like nurses, doctors and dentists, as well as transport workers like bus drivers and pilots.

We also know there are particular situations where the virus is easily spread – large crowds of people in close contact such as in aeroplanes, buses, bars and clubs, as well as in hospitals.

LISTEN: Why lifting lockdowns and easing restrictions may be the biggest COVID-19 test facing countries

READ: Commentary: Airlines have it bad with COVID-19 but airports have it worse

Immunity passports could be used to allow people with immunity to help out on the front lines (with their consent). 

I have personally been contacted by people who have recovered from COVID-19 and want to volunteer to help in highly exposed roles, such as administrative roles in ICU wards in hospitals to take pressure off nurses and doctors.

Further, hospitals might choose to roster staff with immune passports to treat COVID-19 patients, because the risk of them contracting and spreading the virus is significantly lower compared to those who haven’t had the virus.

In these instances, immunity passports might be useful for individual hospitals to allocate staff based on immunity.

Similarly, bus and taxi drivers with immunity passports could cover for colleagues who might be older or have medical conditions that make them particularly vulnerable to COVID-19.

A ComfortDelGro Taxi driver keeping a ComfortDelivery item in a styrofoam box. (Photo: ComfortDelGro Taxi)

READ: Commentary: Infecting volunteers with COVID-19 may speed up vaccine development

And of course your passport isn’t forever – it would need to be reviewed over time with another blood test to see if you are still immune.


But using immunity passports in broader society could create two classes of citizens, opening up risks of discrimination. Holding one might become a privilege if it enabled people to go about their lives in a relatively normal way – for example, if certain jobs entailed being able to travel overseas.

But the second class, who don’t have immunity passports, would still be subject to health restrictions and lockdowns while waiting to gain immunity via a vaccine.

Similar to a “chicken pox party”, immunity passports would then create a perverse pull factor and encourage people to deliberately become infected. This incentive might be particularly strong for those who are desperate for work.

This would obviously be extremely dangerous as the virus has a significant mortality rate and people of all ages have died from COVID-19.

READ: Commentary: Can catching coronavirus increase your chances of getting a stroke?

Immunity passports could be effective when used in a targeted way such as in specific hospitals or businesses facing higher exposure to COVID-19. But using them across all jobs may bear heavy social implications.

BOOKMARK THIS: Our comprehensive coverage of the coronavirus outbreak and its developments

Download our app or subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on the coronavirus outbreak:

Nigel McMillan is Program Director, Infectious Diseases and Immunology at Menzies Health Institute, Griffith University. This commentary first appeared on The Conversation.

Source: CNA/el


Also worth reading